tv U.S. Senate CSPAN June 15, 2011 5:00pm-8:00pm EDT
objection. mrs. hagan: i ask that the morning business be extended until 6:00 p.m. with senators permitted to speak up to 10 minutes each. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mrs. hagan: i suggest the absence of a quorum. thank you. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: mr. president?
the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call in progress be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. inhofe: mr. president, i'm going to wait until the senator from illinois arrives before making a motion, but i would like to explain what i am going to make a motion on when he does arrive. i have an amendment, first of all, being the ranking member of the environment and public works committee, i have more than just a passive interest in this e.d.a. bill. but one of the things i have been trying to do is to get people to understand. we have a lot of amendments and a lot has nothing to do with the economic development administration. they have to do with everything else that's out there. i'm guilt yif the same thing. i have five, i think, unrelated amendments. they're all good stuff. things i'd like it get through, and that's what this bill seems to be all about. but underlying all these amendments there is a bill and there's a reason for introducing it and it is a foregone
conclusion, i think we all understand, that if we were to pass the e.d.a. bill out of here in any form similar to the way it was introduced, it would never pass the house. that would be a done deal. what i'm going to attempt to do is i'm going to attempt today and tomorrow and however long it takes to get an amendment in there that is going to provide oversight authority by the g.a.o. through the audits, assessments, the g.a.o. can ensure that the e.d.a. grants are distributed and put some spending discipline in there through a competitive award process. it is all drafted in the amendment. the amendment is number 459. and in cordance with the e.d.a. criteria. the g.a.o. would submit a report every year to the senate environment public works committee, and the house t.n.i. to have efficiency assured. what we're doing here is instead of just having a jump ball and
saying we're going to do any kind of an e.d.a. program that we can sell through the administration, truly have discipline in their -- in there so it will have to be, first of all, gone over with the general indicating office and then after that it's not over because it has to come back to both committees in the house and senate and of course i'm the ranking member. and by the time that gets started i may be the chairman if it's after the next election, but you never know about those things, so we'd be able to look at it again. now, the purpose of the amendment is to make certain that grant recipients are determined based on competent procedures and to create a -- more accountability for the e.d.a. overall i think the washington bureaucrats should not be picking winners and losers but instead rely on a formula and strict rules to determine where agency dollars flow. now, i know we're not on the bill now we're still in morning
business. i understand we're going to go back on the bill at 6:00 this afternoon, but i have to get a request in that my amendment be entered at that time. i ask that the pending amendment be set aside for consideration of amendment 499, which i have just described. and for right now -- and i think the chief complaint about something that the e.d.a. process -- by the way, i have to say about the e.d.a. process, it has done so well in my state of oklahoma. he we had one project in elgin, oklahoma, a very small community, adjacent to fort sill for an e.d.a. grant. they ended up planning to construct a 250,000 square foot building that would employ -- the numbers were almost the entire population of elgin,
oklahoma. the south central part of oak oak has his -- oklahoma has historically been impoverished. through the e.d.a. grants we have done a good job. the good thing about the e.d.a. grants is they require a lot of local participation. generally it's through the city funds and state funds and county funds and then an equal amount or greater amount from the private sector. in my state of oklahoma, the grant -- the grants are usually about one to nine in terms of public participation so that the program is good. i'm the first one to admit, however, it may not work that way -- the same way in every state. i can only say what our experience has been in oklahoma in what i'm going -- when i'm going to suggest is something that we have been going through in oklahoma. we have been going through a competitive award process. that's a process that is all outlined in our rules.
we know what they have to go through for competition, and then it's in accordance with the criteria. the criteria's very important. one of these days we're going to get around to a transportation reauthorization bill that will come out of my same committee. it's -- the last one we had was 2005 and since then, we just -- that has run out and we are going just month to month and we have a dire need for infrastructure in america in the roads, highways, bridges. it is something that we fell behind on and we are going to be getting to that. the reason our 2005 bill was so successful in infrastructure for transportation in the reauthorization bill is because we had a formula. and the formula took into consideration money to be spent on bridges and roads and highways that the -- state by state it -- such factors as the state -- the fatalities in that state, the number of road lanes,
miles, and all this criteria. and when we got through and established a criteria in 2005, it must have been good because nobody liked it. it was something that upset everyone and then obviously it's one that was really pretty good and we passed it. that was a $286.6 billion reauthorization bill. you might want to say everybody's goosy about spending money these days. it's understandable. this administration is actually -- in -- in president obama's three budgets has -- has suggested and has put into effect $5 trillion of deficit -- not debt, but deficit -- and this last budget was a little over $2.5 trillion, and i can remember, mr. president, back in 1995, back when president clinton was in office, going down to the floor and complaining because he had a --
a -- a budget to run the entire country of $1.5 trillion. well, the deficit alone in the last budget we've had here has as described by the president has exceeded the amount it took to run the country during that period of time. i see that the senator from illinois is here and let me just tell you i say to my good friend from illinois, what i am doing here is i am going to attempt now, and it will be objected to and i understand that, because we're not to the bill yet, but i'm going to continue to have an accountability amendment that takes the e.d.a. and subject it to the competitive award process along with oversight by g.a.o. an by our economy and the t.n.i. committee in the house of representatives. i think it's something that would make -- frankly, if we don't do it, in my opinion there would be no way in the world that the house of representatives would pass it. this
offers discipline to it. i will go so far to say if we're not able to pass this amendment, have accountability, i will probably end up voting against the bill if it comes up for a vote. with that in mind, i would ask unanimous consent that it be in order to resume consideration of s. 782 so that i can call up my amendment number 459, which is at the desk. mr. durbin: mr. president, reserving the right to object, what i'm about to say is no reflection on the senator from oklahoma nor the merits of his amendment. we have almost 100 amendments filed and 17 pending, and the majority leader has asked that we at least reflect on those filed and set our schedule accordingly. i'm not saying that this won't be considered, but at the moment we are going to object to the offering of additional amendments. so i do object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. inhofe: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.
mr. brown: thank you, mr. president. i ask unanimous consent to vitiate the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: thank you, mr. president. while it's important to address the federal budget deficit, too many washington politicians have turned a blind eye to the u.s. trade deficit. working families in ohio and our nation's manufacturers haven't forgotten about the devastating effects of our ballooning trade deficit. how much bigger does our trade deficit need to get before washington wakes up and realizes we need a very different direction in trade? let's put american workers and
american businesses first, for a change. let's focus on enforcing existing trade laws and help workers retrain for new jobs. let's not pursue the more of the same style of trade agreements that have wreaked havoc on our economy. that's really what the debate over the korea trade agreement and the panama and the colombia free trade agreements -- that's what the debate is all about. two weeks ago senator casey and i led a letter of 43 senators sewned by the senator -- signed by the senator, the presiding officer officer, the senator from rhode island -- led a letter of 43 senators to the president affirming his decision to pass trade assistance adjustment before proceeding to the draid agreements with colombia, panama, and south korea. our position on t.a.a. has been consistent since we asked unanimous consent to pass t.a.a. in late-2010. we need a long-term
reauthorization regardless of what we do on this free trade agreements. senator casey and i stood on this floor time after time, starting in december, into january, into february asking our colleagues -- all of our colleagues -- to reauthorize, to extend trade adjustment assistance to those workers who lose their jobs through no doing of their own. they lose their jobs because of trade agreements that this congress has passed and because of a trade policy that this administration and congress have followed. we're likely face ago situation in which t.a.a. is unfortunately being linked with the free trade agreements. if and when a deal is reached, we will examine both its contents and the process in moving it forward. when it comes to american workers, we want to at least have a five-year reauthorization of f.a.a., one that includes the 2009 reforms and provides for 80% health coverage tax credit. mr. president, over -- time and time again our republican
members stood up and said they object -- each time he objects to our moving forward to help american workers. how -- how -- i just don't understand, mr. president, how people want to pass these trade agreements knowing that workers will be dislocated, people will lose jobs, plants will close down, people will lose jobs, communities will be dea medvedev stated because of what -- devastated because of what actions this body takes, passing trade agreemented, if they say, no, we don't want to do anything to help those workers. we continue -- that's why, mr. president, we believe that t.a.a. should be separate from the free trade agreements. i ask my colleagues, especially those who call the free trade agreements with korea and panama and colombia, the same people that called nafta and cafta and pntr with china, call these kinds of actions -- how they can say they're job creators. if that's the case, what sort of message does it send about these trade agreements if they must be
linked to aassistance for displaced workers? so they're saying the only way they want to do t.a.a. is to connect it to korea or connect it to colombia or connect it to panama. they're acknowledging when you pass these trade agreements, it's costing us jobs. why would we do that? because of that, senator casecy and want a clean vote on t.a. and want to work to shake this package. on the korea trade agreement i have two concerns. first is jobs. always jobs in these trade agreements. ever since i -- ever since i've been here in the house and the senate, every time there is a trade agreement, north american free trade agreement in 1993, pntr with china, not a trade agreement but allowing china into the world trade organization, 2004 or 2005 with the central american -- if i remember right -- when the central american free trade agreement passed the congress, now with korea -- they talk about all the jobs it's going to
create, they tell us we're going to close our trade adjustment because -- our trade deficit because of these agreements. never does that happen. we had a trade surplus with mexico. today we have a $90 billion trade deficit with mexico. when china pntr passed, we had about a -- my recollection, 12 years ago we had about ads 10 billion or $12 billion trade deficit with china. now our annual trade deficit with china is $273 billion last year. this year in one month it was $21 billion. so, mr. president, it's pretty clear that these trade agreements -- the promises and the reality are such different things. they don't create jobs. they don't close our trade deficit. yet the promises continue. so my first problem with the korea free trade agreement is jobs. the i.t.c. -- the international trade commission predicts that it will increase the trade
deficit especially in met tail and iron and textiles and apparel. while the economy is still facing extreme challenges -- well, clearly when president obama took office we were losing 700,000 jobs a month, in january/february of 2009. the last 14 amongsts we've seen job growth. we've seen manufacturing job growth. the last thing we do when the economy is facing extreme challenges, the last thing we should disco pass a trade agreement of this magnitude with its short-term and long-term effects on jofns the administration finally we have an administration that's being a little more truthful when it it comes to promises about these trade agreements. as i said, during the nafta time president bush. first president clinton said it will provide all these jobs. 200,000 gorks i think one of them said. but this time at least the administration is saying that they expect -- they are saying -- they aren't saying this is going to create jobs. they say this agreement is
expected to support, whatever that means, 70,000 jobs. we will, let's dot math. the congressional budget office said the cost of this trade agreement, this trade agreement costs money. we lose a lot of money in tariffs this. trade agreement costs $7 billion over ten years. that means, if we're going to support -- a not create, support 70,000 gorks the agreement costs about $100,000 for every job supported. the pact -- this trade pact has unusually low rules of origin allowing goods from korea that are made up with to 65% of their parts from china or other countries. when the european union negotiated the -- their korea trade agreement, they had domestic content rules of 5% meaning 5% of a product -- 55% after prorkd the components in a product, had to come from south korea. our administration -- the obama administration improved this over the bush agreement but only
march najibullahly -- says only 35% has to come from korea. two out of two-thirds of the added value, the components of these products shipped from korea with basically no tariffs coming to the united states -- two-thirds, 65% of that value added can come from china, or can come from a low-wage commie country and weaken environmental laws. so it allows a back door for countries like china to gain even more access to the american market. we recognize we flif a world with global supply chains but this very low domestic content threshold of 35% will clearly hurt american manufacturers over the long term. so to be clear, this is not just a korea free trade agreement, it is effectively a global free trade agreement. second thing the korea f.t.a. does that causes me concern is what's called the inkvestor state enforcement in which a corporation is empowered to directly challenge laws as violations of a trade pact.
now, before the north american free trade agreement, mr. president, there was no such thing as investor state relations. that meant that countries that have -- that a company could not sue another -- could not sue a foreign government. for instance, if a country -- if the canadians were unhappy with something -- some u.s. law, the canadian government could sue the u.s. government but a canadian company couldn't sue the u.s. govment so what these investor state provision dozen is it undermines sovereign tivment it undermines what we have done in this body. we fight in this pod for strong clean air laws and strong environmental rules and strong pure food laws and strong consumer protections. under the investor state relations, a company in korea could sue the u.s. government for those kinds of strong environmental workforce safety or food safety laws. we don't want to give a company in another country the standed to undermine our sovereignty on
laws that were democratically attained in this country. this mechanism is not necessary for a pact between two countries with well-established rules of law. we didn't do that in the u.s.-australia free trade agreement. it did not include these investor state provisions. why would we do it now with korea which is also a country that operates under a rule of law? mr. president, one more reason that this korea free trade agreement weakens our environmental laws, weakens our food safety laws, dilutes what we stand for and the american values we hold so dear. it's about jobs and these investor state provisions. before pursuing more trade agreements that caused our trade deficit to balloon to more thandz dz 060 billion, why not enforce existing trade laws. we know some things that we ought to do before passing new trade agreements, we need to
better enforce trade laws. we've done that. president obama, to his credit, and, again, i don't agree with him on these trade agreements, i think he's wrong, but to his credit more than any president, i think, in at least 25 years, president obama has begun to enforce some trade rules. he enforced on oil country tub tubetubular steel, his decision on chinese towers created hundreds of jobs in finley, ohio, his decisions on gaming -- chinese gaming the system on coated paper, the paper industry still exists in this country, not what it used to be, but it meant jobs in southwest ohio and all over my state and all over states where paper is still manufactured in this country. we also should look at other things we should do before a new trade agreement is we should
consider reintroducing super 301 so that we have the tools to fight back when countries like china game the system. i'm working with my colleague from ohio, the republican senator from ohio, the republican senator from missouri, and democratic senator from missouri and a democratic senator from oregon, chairman wyden of the finance committee subcommittee to begin to enforce -- enforce customs duties and make sure that companies -- that companies and countries that evade these customs duties could no longer evade them. those are the kinds of things we should be doing. prowl krugman who has -- paul krugman said if you want a trade policy that has employment, you have to -- a counterveiling duty on chinese exporting would be job creating here, a deal with south korea would not be.
mr. president, this comes from somebody who -- a noble prize winning economist, somebody who is -- has been in the past supportive of these free trade agreements believing that they have created jobs. he realizes, korea won't create jobs, beginning to enforce trade laws is the way to go. i would close with this, some years ago president bush said that for every billion dollar trade surplus or every billion dollar trade deficit a country has, that translates into 13,000 jobs. so, in other words, if we have a trade deficit with china of $1 billion, that would mean we're selling to them $1 billion less than we are buying from them and the manufacturer of those products that we buy versus the one we manufacture and sell is a net loss to the united states of 13,000 jobs. so for every billion dollar trade surplus or trade deficit, it translates into 13,000 jobs for that country. mr. president, think about this, the trade deficit for china last
year was $273 billion. the trade deficit that we have with the entire world, the so-called multilateral trade deficit was $634 billion. mr. president, travel this country, see the kinds of manufacturing job loss we have had. we have lost manufacturing jobs from 1998, the last two years of the clinton administration, all eight years of the bush administration, and the first year and a half of the obama administration, we were losing manufacturing jobs throughout that whole process. now we're starting to gain manufacturing jobs, but we can't continue to gain manufacturing jobs when we pass free trade agreements that clearly cause more companies to shut down in our country and more -- and those companies to move abroad. mr. president, the create trade a -- korea trade agreement is a bad idea. it is imperative we do what the president has said to do and that is pass trade adjustment
assistance with health coverage tax credit for those who have lost jobs from trade agreements and trade policy. it's the right thing to do. it's good for our country. it's good for our economy and it's especially good for workers. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. president, i'm sorry. i ask unanimous consent the period for morning business be extended until 6:30 with senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: mr. president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:
mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the cal of the quorum be terminated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: what is the pending business? the presiding officer: the clerkt will report the pending business. mr. reid: morning business is closed then, is that right? the presiding officer: the senator is correct. the clerk: s. 782, a bill to amend the public works and economic development act of 1965 to reauthorize that act and for other purposes. mr. reid: i ask consent to set aside the pending allot and call up amendment 476 on behalf of senator feinstein. the presiding officer: without objection, shall the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: mr. reid for mrs. feinstein proposes amendment numbered 476.
at the end, added following: title -- ethanol subsidies and tariff repeal. section 1 -- short title. this title my be cited as the ethanol subsidy and tariff repeal afnlgt section 2 -- repeal of veetc, elimination of excise tax credit repayment. one -- mr. reid: i ask that the reading of the amendment be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: mr. president, i would ask that senator coburn be listed as the second sponsor of that amendment, feinstein 476. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: ask unanimous consent that when the senate resumes consideration of s. 782 on thursday, june 16, the feinstein amendment 476 and mccain amendment 411 be debated concurrently, there be up to four hours divided between
between, the senate proceed to votes on amendments in the following order: feinstein 476, mccain 411. further, neither amendment be divisible. there be no amendments or points of order or motions in order -- or budgets point of order and applicable motions to waifnlt both amendments be subject to a 60-vote threshold. the motion to reconsider be laid and -- on the table and finally the majority leader be recognized. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: mr. president the majority leader. mr. reid: i want to thank the senator from south carolina. senator demint wanted to make sure that this agreement does not limit his ability to offer votes on an amendment that he
cares about, it's number 460, regarding the renewable fuel standards and estate tax. senator demint is correct, this agreement does not preclude the senate from considering his amendment and i thank the senator for his cooperation. mr. president, i also very much appreciate the understanding of senator feinstein, senator klobuchar, senator thune, senator coburn. we have worked really hard to get to this point. it hasn't been easy. most everyone didn't get what they wanted, but that's what agreements are all about. and we have the opportunity to move forward on to other things. we'll have to decide what more we can do on this bill, but i appreciate very much their understanding and the many conversations i had with them during the day they were all
very courteous and thoughtfu thl and very good advocates for their positions. i ask consent that the senate proceed to s. res. 208. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. res. 208, expressing the sense of the senate regarding mongolian president visit to washington, d.c., and its support for the growing partnership between the united states and mongolia. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. reid: i ask that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, any statements related to the measure be printed in the record in the appropriate place. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask consent when the senate completes its business today, it jaren tomorrow morning june 16 at 10:00 a.m., following the prayer and pledge, the journal of proceedings, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved until later in the day, and following any leader remarks the senate resume consideration of s. 782, the economic development act under the previous order. the presiding officer: without
objection. mr. reid: there will be two roll call votes tomorrow around 2:00 p.m. in relation to the feinstein and mccain amendments regarding the subject matter for those amendments. if there is no furtsz business to come before the senate, i ask that it adjourn under the previous order. the presiding officer: the the presiding officer: the
>> the thing know, henry, to me, that's unconscionable, it is the back that you put it out. does it involve security information. a lot of other things? what kind of people would do such things >> 40 years ago, "the new york times" published the first installments of the pentagon papers. watch historians and the people who made history. search, watch, clip and share. watch what you want, when you want. >> white house spokesman jay carney said today the administration is sending a detailed report to congress. this comes as some members of congress filed the federal lawsuit stating the obama administration has illegally sent u.s. military forces to libya. this briefing is 50 minutes. >> good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, i don't have any announcements. i will go straight to question.
jim. >> hi, jay, thank you. i was wondering if you could tell us when the white house became aware that the pakistanis had arrested people when they raided bin laden's compound in abbottabad? >> i don't have any specific information. it's extremely important and complicated. we have made that clear and been can date about that. this is important to remember the relationship is important because it heavens -- helps our national security interest to maintain it. pakistan has worked with us to go after terrorism and terrorists. more terrorists have been killed on pakistani soil than any other country. we continue to work with the pakistanis, sometimes we have
difficult issues to work through with them, but it remains an important relationship. >> well, this appears to be a pattern. these arrest aside, you had an event -- episode a couple of weeks ago where u.s. intelligence shared information with the pakistanis regarding two bomb-making compounds and then the militants apparently fled. does the president have -- is he frustrated with this kind of pattern? and let me ask you what the senate intelligence committee asked last week of the deputy cia director which is on a scale of one to ten, where would you rank pakistani cooperation on matters of counterterrorism. >> without specific ranking, there's a complicated relationship. i think that's pretty candid. they have also made clear, the
cooperation we do get is vital and essential to our war against terrorism and we will continue that relationship for precisely that reason. when we have issues, we deal with them. obviously, in the wake of the successful mission against osama bin laden, we have reached out and engaged with the pakistani government and our counterparts in pakistan at many levels, precisely because this relationship is so important. >> but it seems the administration is merely accepting the fact it's a complicated relationship. are you doing anything to improve the relationship? >> well, what i just said. we work constantly to improve the relationship, to improve the cooperation, and whatever number you pick on the scale of cooperation, that number
represents significant success in combating terrorism and eliminating terrorists. terrorists who threaten pakistan, terrorists who threaten the united states, and threaten our allies. so, again, we don't do this except with those priorities in mind. it's not always an easy relationship, but it is a vital one. >> on afghanistan -- the president is meeting with secretary gates today. is afghanistan drawndown on agenda? and have you received a recommendation from the pentagon? >> the president, as you know, has weekly meetings with secretary gates. this is what this meeting is -- and the vice president when he's in town. afghanistan routinely comes up in those weekly meetings. i'm not says it's on the agenda -- we don't read out the weekly meetings with secretary gates or the weekly meetings with secretary clinton. so as i would simply leave it at that.
on the second question, as i've said before, the president will be looking at recommendations from his commanders, including general petraeus, having discussions with his commanders, secretary gates, his national security team going forward. i'm not going to give you a blow by blow about when those meetings are taking place and the content of those meetings, but he said -- the president did -- that he will make a decision soon about the beginning of the drawdown. it would make the point that it is the continuation of complementation of a process set in motion in december of 2009. this is not a reopening of review of our policy, it is the implementation of his policy, which is succeeding, making process. the stated goal, disrupt, dismantle, defeat al qaeda. we've had enormous success in achieving that goal. stopping the taliban's momentum -- we've had significant progress in achieving that goal. as he reviews the options, he will obviously consult with a
number of people. but the president has been a deeply engaged participant in the afghanistan policy from the beginning. as you know, he has chaired monthly situation room meetings on afpak as we call it. and, of course, afghanistan and pakistan are elements of his national security conversations all the time. >> can i just follow? >> i will go in order here. yes? >> thanks. senate republican leader jon kyl said july 1st was the biden group's goal for deal on the debt ceiling. i wonder if the white house is also envisioning that timeline, end of next week, and if the president is intending to get involved directly in these meetings? >> we certainly endorse we need to make progress, as we have, and expect to continue to make progress. i don't have a deadline for you. i know the vice president has spoken to this, and i would
refer you to some of his comments. i'm sorry, was there a second question? >> obama's involvement? the president's involvement? >> the president is regularly involved, and he with, i'm sure, as the process moves toward, engage even more directly with leaders. but i can tell you that he is frequently updated on the progress of the negotiations by the vice president, by the vice president's chief of staff, bruce reed, by other members of his economic team. and he will continue to be having those -- getting those updates, and he will engage directly at the appropriate time. yes, dan. >> i want to go back to pakistan again, and the fact that you keep talking about the relationship as being complicated. at any point looking down the road, does the administration foresee a scenario of tough love? where you have to really start
looking at perhaps the aid to pakistan in order to bring the friendship back to the middle? >> i think, dan, we are very clear-eyed about this. we pursue this relationship and value it and state it's importance precisely because it is in the national security interests of the united states of america to have this relationship and to maintain the cooperation that we do get, the significant cooperation that we do get from pakistan in this incredibly important and volatile region of the world. i don't think that we are remotely naive about the challenges in the relationship, in the region, and dealing with the variety of issues that confront us. but i would say again it is important to remember the success as we have had, success that is have come in many cases precisely because we have this cooperation. that is why we actively work to ensure that we have cooperation going forward. >> there will be no divorce in this relationship? >> i don't anticipate that.
>> about the process that's being made on debt talks, how would you rate that? significant process? more progress than progress we heard last week? >> yes. i think as you know we have stepped up the pace of meetings. the vice president has had a second meeting today. he had one yesterday, he will have another one tomorrow. we obviously are interested in moving the process forward. no one suggested it is easy, and i don't want to suggest by stating the fact that we believe the talks that made progress that we -- that, you know, they are all sitting around a table and laughing it up because it's so easy. because it's not. these are hard issues. we have a lot of differences. the stakes are high in the sense that everyone agrees we have to have significant deficit reduction. everyone agrees as the parallel issue that we need to raise the debt ceiling so that we do not
default on the obligations. people have those participants and those negotiations have brought a level of seriousness to them that is essential to making the progress that we've made. i don't want to give any predictions or percentages on how much progress we've made or how optimistic i am about the ultimate success of those talks because they are difficult, but we do remain optimistic. >> scale of one to 10? >> again, i won't rate it. but -- yes. >> a new study by the center of public integrity found that 200 of the president's biggest donors have landed plum government jobs and advisory posts, won millions of dollars in federal contracts for their businesses, and attended elite white house meetings. do you have any response? >> well, i would say the administration looks for the most qualified candidates who represent americans from all walks of life when it makes
appointments. the administration also has across the board the toughest ethics standard in history, including a bold commitment to transparency, which i have discussed frequently from here. now the people we have appointed all have sterling academic credentials, years of public service and private sector experience that make them eminently qualified to the positions to which they were appointed. i would make the point here, having enacted the high ethical standards, highest in history, and having pursued and delivered on a level of transparency that is unprecedented, it is important to note that being a supporter does not qualify you for a job or guarantee you a job. but it does not disqualify you obviously. so we stand by all of our appointments. we believe they are enormously qualified for the jobs that they hold. >> and how does that square with what the president said in the announcement speech in 2007? he said the cynics and lobbyist
and the special interest who has turned the government into a game only they can afford to play. they write the checks, you get stuck with the bills. they get the access, while you get to write a letter. >> well, right, but this is -- we are talking about -- you asked me account the supporters of the president who may have been donors who have gotten positions. and i would point out the fact that those -- the people who got the positions got them because of their credentials. they also happened to be donors in the some cases. there are, obviously, numerous and far more -- far many more cases of people who weren't donors who were appointed to the jobs. and that's a lot different than the problem that exists in washington, existed in washington, special interests having lobby success here in terms of the effect that has legislation that's reduced in congress and signed into law. and we have been a incredibly
aggressive in that. i mean we are -- again you -- it's important to remember the kinds of transparency and kind of transparency that we have made a regular practice here, including releases waves logs, something that was never done before, in terms of visitors to the white house and the other measures we have taken in terms of the -- what you can and cannot do in the wake of the serving the administration in terms of lobbying and that sort of thing. so we believe that we've taken important measures to qualify the praise that this administration has gotten for its high ethical standards and we stand by that. yes. >> jay, following up on that, are you says that the raising or bundling $1,000 or $50,000 does not give a person any leg up in looking at a administration job? >> i am saying that. i am saying that the president appoints people based on their
qualifications. >> it has nothing to do with raising half a million dollars? >> chip, i think that -- i didn't raise half a million dollars. i didn't raise money. i'm standing here. >> eight percent. >> and the fact is that we -- the president made clear that he would make political appointments as every president before him has. but we have enacted ethical standards and levels of transparency that unprecedented that we believe should give the administration people the kind of confidence that they have lacked in the past. >> so nearly 80% of the people who bundled more than $500,000 got key administration positions that has nothing to do with the money that -- >> chip, we can have this discussion. but the fact is i would -- look at people we've appointed. look at their credentials. >> money is not a factor?
[laughter] >> and i'm saying it is not a disqualification for office to have ab supporter of the president. >> would it be wrong to reward people for hard work of raising half a million? >> it would wrong if they weren't qualified. >> but would it be wrong to reward -- >> and we stand by by -- it woud be wrong to appoint someone that was wasn't qualified to the job. the president has appointed highly qualified individuals to the positions that he has appointed as president. we stand by those appointments. >> one other -- golf. and if you've answered this, just ignore it. is the president going to discussing the debt and policy with things like boehner? >> well, i think i've said from here before, chip, that it is social occasion. it is not -- that we will not complete our budget negotiations on the -- >> will it be mentioned? >> it's hard to imagine that it
won't be. but there's not an agenda or talking point. this is simply an effort to get together outside of an office, outside of the normal venues that presidents and speakers of the house tend to get together and develop further the relationship that the president and the speaker already have developed in the many meetings and conversations they've had already. but -- so i think it -- i assume, and i think it's fair to everyone here to assume that they will discuss all the -- in a general way, some of the business out there that they have between them, including the deficit-reduction talks. but we don't have an agenda. we don't have an excepted outcome. i think i can say with great confidence, they will not wrap up the 18th hole and come out and say we have a deal. but i think for the broader purpose of the work that needs to be done in a bipartisan play in washington, the social occasion is a good thing.
because establishing -- spending number of hours together in that kind of environment, i think can only help improve the chances of bipartisan cooperation, it certainly can't hurt it. unless someone wins really big. and then -- [laughter] >> back to the investigation. address the people who have gotten posts. but -- >> investigation? >> this about -- >> report? >> report. okay. anyway, the report also brings up the idea that some people who have raised a lot of money work for companies that have gotten stimulus money, for example. >> the vast majority of companies that got stimulus money -- a process, by the way, which is largely done in agencies by career employees of the federal government in terms of the bids and that sort of thing, the vast majority of companies were not donors.
were not -- did have that people who were bundlers working for them. so, you know, it's just not -- people were appointed on the merits. >> but it's $13.8 million for level three communications after you have a few bundlers is not chump change. >> i'm sorry. i don't understand the question. >> i'm just saying that's a lot of money. $13.8 in stimulus money. you got a few bundlers on the team? >> again, you have to explain to me what the question is $13.8 -- >> does that pass the journalistic smell test? >> what you are sayreinging -- s i've said, it does not disqualify you to get to work, or any previous administration, to have been a supporter of the president of the united states and to have helped raise money for the president of united states. and nor does it qualify you or get you a job. you have to have the skills and credentials to do it. and our ethical standards are
unmatched by any previous administration. our efforts of transparency are unprecedented. that's not just me saying it, it's outside groups who have said that. so, you know, i think that the fact that individuals who have been appointed also supported the president is hardly a story. >> here's an outside group that's saying big fundraisers have gotten more than 3,000 white house meetings. so that doesn't sound like -- you know, it sounds like money has -- >> does it, mike? i mean, it sounds like you are just throwing out here things, mike. by the way, we have meetings that are then made public in a way that has not never the case before through waves release information. you know, you're throwing stuff up without any suggestion of any impropriority. which, by the way, there isn't
any position of any improprietate. it has been remarkable in it's level of transparency and the lack of abuse and fraud. we are proud of that. >> quickly on libya, you are going to send information to the hill today. are you hopeful that what you send to the hill are going to answer their questions and allow the operation to go forward? where do things go after today? >> we do hope this afternoon to provide to congress a letter and a report over 30 ages on our libya mission. we think that it will answer the questions that members have about the mission. it will also include within it a legal analysis that explains our position that the president has
acted in a way -- in a miner that's consistent with the war powers resolution. we believe that the support for the overall mission, the support for the goal of protecting libyan civilians and holding kernel gadhafi accountable will continue. it's support that we've had in the past and we expect to continue. now is not the time to send mixed messages. i think it's an opportunity to remind you of the bigger picture here. about what the president said he would do and what he has done. work, a broad coalition, the united states intervened and saved thousands of lives. saved the citizens of 3/4 of a million people and stops a massive, enforcing a no-fly zone, enforcing a arms embargo. he also, the president did, kept his commitment to the american people to limit our involvement in libya. he said at the time, and it will
-- it now and will always be the case, he will sec no ground troops to libya. after an initial phrase, days not weeks, as he said, as he promised, the united states stepped back from the lead role, turned over lead responsibility to nato, and has been in a support mission ever since. most importantly, the mission has been effective in fulfilling the goals set out by united nations security council resolution 1973 -- protecting civilians, enforcing an arms embargo, enforcing a no-fly zone. and we think that as that mission has been effective, it has helped the transitional national council of libya to assert itself. it has allowed the tnc to work with the contact group and others as it has begin to envision what a postgadhafi
libya look like. it has embraced democratic reform and process. the insurance of basic and civil rights and human rights for the people of libya. these are all positive developments, we believe congress has supported in the past and should continue to support it and will. and we continue as we have said from the beginning to welcome the support from congress that would come in this case in the form of resolution put forward by a bipartisan group of senators including senator mccain and kerry. >> very quickly, ten senators filed a lawsuit on libya today. have you seen the lawsuit? do you take it seriously? >> well, we are aware. the report that we will be sending up to congress later today answers a lot of questions that members have, continues a process of consultation that have been broad and deep and consistent. more now, but continues the process that allowed me to say, i believe, last week, that there
have been 40 disstate engagements with congress in terms of consultation on libya. this is part of that process. we feel very confidence that we will be able to answer the questions that congress has. >> jay, you describe the relationship with pakistan as uneasy and complicated. >> i think i said complicated. >> well, you said it's not easy. >> okay. >> >> uneasy was my word. i concede that. but you didn't use allies. >> pakistan is an partner of the united states, an important partner in fighting terrorism, fighting the terrorists who in that region plotted the attack on the united states on september 11th, 2001. >> is partner different than ally? >> well, i think there are
diplomatic nuances. the corporation that we get from the pakistanis have been vital to our efforts. that is why we continue to work with the pakistanis to ensure that cooperation continue. >> you are probably familiar with the quote from candidate obama in 2007 from the "boston global." history has shown time and time again, however, the military action is most successful when it's authorized and supported by the legislative branch. it's always preferable to have the informed consent of congress prior to any military action. in compliance with the war powers, will the president begin withdrawal of american forces in action against libya this weekend? >> first of all, there are no forces to withdoctor from libya. let's just make that clear. secondly, the president has acted in a manner that the consistent with the war powers resolution. i will point you to -- not being a lawyer -- to the legal analysis that will be part of
the packet of information provided to congress this afternoon. >> can i point to the one specific point please? >> again, you're talking about the war powers resolution. you are talking about a constitutional debate that has existed in this country for a long, long time. volumes of which have been written about. and the reasoning that we have put forward both here and being provided to congress about why he has acted in a manner consistent with the war powers resolution. i don't want to get into that here. i will point you to the analysis written by actual attorneys and not just ones who play them on tv. >> let me follow on pakistan. >> let me go to laura. >> following up, you said consistently the white house would welcome a resolution of support from congress. which i could understand why the white house would feel that way. isn't the real question not welcoming a resolution of support, but welcoming a
congressional debate and maybe it will come out in support and maybe it won't? >> well, we have certainly not restrained congress from having a debate. we have been actively consulting with congress. again, more than 40 distinct engagements to consult with them and inform them about the mission in libya. we are providing a report this afternoon of more than 30 pages that we believe answers in details the questions that congress has put forward about the mission. again, i think it's important -- laura, including the legal analysis that answers the question that you and mike have. it is important to remember what we're talking about here. the action the president took, the promises that he's made and has kept about the nature of u.s. involvement, and where we are now in terms of our supporting role where we have no troops on the ground, where we have supporting a nato mission that is fulfilling a united nations security council resolution to protect libyan civilians and to enforce a no-fly zone and an arms embargo.
that mission has been successful thus far. we believe it's important to continue it so that it continues to be successful to protect libyans and to allow the space necessary for the opposition to move forward with building a future for libya and for libyan in the postgadhafi world. we believe it is important for congress not to send mixed messages about a goal that we think most members of congress share. >> so you in order for congress not to send mixed messages, does that mean you only want a congressional resolution if it comes out in support? >> i think we've said what we have in the past about things that have been voted on that we think are necessarily help. not necessary or helpful. we do support the resolution put forwards by senator kerry -- a number of senators, republicans and democrats. that reinforce the goals that we
set out in the very limited, very specific mission with specific objectives and specific limitations on u.s. involvement. >> another question, you are -- repeatedly articulated the argument for being in libya and the limited nature of the conflict. if the white house is unable to persuade a majority of the house and senate that those arguments are legitimate, valid, true, what have you, should the mission be allowed to succeed even if congress -- >> again, the legal reasoning will be able to you to review and analyze. the fact is some of the resolutions and questions that were part of the house resolution and we have endeavored in the report to answer some of the questions. it said there should be no u.s. ground troops. well, yeah. the president said that on day
one. we agree. and the president is absolutely committed to his assertion there will be no u.s. ground troops in libya. anticipating what may or may not come out of congress is not helpful. i encourage you to look at report that we're making available later this afternoon. >> just to fairfully on pakistan, are you declining to say what the administration will do in the wake of the arrests or comment on the substance of the arrests at all? >> are you talking about pakistan? i'm not commenting on the reports, but we are engaged with pakistanis. >> back on that, when you look at the scope of actions by pakistan before the osama bin laden operation and since, how would you gauge the reliability of pakistan as a -- as you put it a partner? >> i think it's a complicated relationship. it is not perfect.
and that requires a lot of attention. we give it that attention because it's important to do that. it's important to our national security interests to do that. i'm not going to give percentage assessments or 1-10 assessments of the level of cooperation. i would note that in the wake of that operation which obviously was a major development and, you know, there was a reaction to it we have worked hard to continue the cooperation that's important and we have received some cooperation from pakistan continuing since the bin laden mission. you know, beyond that, i'm not going to characterize the relative level of cooperation, but it does continue and we are working to make sure that it continues from here. >> i didn't ask for one to ten. i'm just asking you, jake, are they reliable? >> again, reliable in they are
important partners in this effort. it is a complicated relationship. and one way to answer the question, yes, they have been reliable in providing important information that has led to successful missions against terrorists. and that's a pretty important fact to remember. they have also had important successes in the fight against terrorists who threaten pakistan. important to remember. shared enemies if you will. and again saying that while acknowledging that it's a complicated relationship. >> yes, jay, back to the deficit talks. monday in north carolina, the president said the talks, give us a little bit of room to continue to do some smart things like the payroll tax cuts. given that, i was wondering if you could give us a sense of what kind of reaction that you folks have had from the hill,
republicans primarily on the extension or an extension and adding to? >> first of all, i think that conversations notwithstanding and what the president said, we are not committing proposals to congress. that's important to remember. we are, like i think a lot of people, listening to ideas about -- ideas for how we might continue to grow the economy and create jobs. the nature of the discussions that we've had in the talks led by the vice president, i'm not going to get into. but obviously as the president said, we are interested in ideas for how we can continue to grow the economy and create jobs. even as we take measures to significantly reduce the deficit. and again, this is all because we have as we engage in this
important exercise with members and leaders of congress, it's important to remember when the end goal here is. the end goal is not to simply reduce the deficit and cut the debt to gdp ratio because those are worthy goals in and of themselves. the goal is to strengthen the economy to position to grow and create more jobs. and an agreement we believe done properly in a balanced way that doesn't do the opposite doesn't reduce growth, doesn't restrain job creation will have if you will a compound positive effect because it will demonstrate to americans as well others that we have control over our deficits, that we have taken a balanced approach to deal with the long-term debt problem and that will create some confidence. >> is it the sense of the white house that the existing tax cuts have helped the economy?
>> absolutely. >> and that the unemployment rate -- which is 9.1 right now -- might otherwise be higher without them? >> yes, yes, i think that is absolutely the case. when you have provided more money through the payroll tax cut in particular, as well as the extension of the middle-class tax cuts, provided extra money to americans who are at income levels that mean as a matter of economic analysis, that they are much more likely to pump the money back into the economy, i think it's a very helpful thing. it has helped the growth that we have seen this year and helped the job creation that we've have seen. it's an opinion that i share, but generated by economist. >> reaction from the hill generally? >> again, i don't have any reaction to report. you might ask them. again, nobody is up there submitting proposals that i'm aware of to react to.
yes, sir? >> jay, is it the legal position of the administration that you'll still be acting consistent with the war powers act on the 91st day of the operation? >> i think that we have been acting consistent with the war powers resolutions. we will continue the mission. i believe it's important the legal analysis that i'll leave to the lawyers which you will see this afternoon. >> is it fair to assume the president personally believes the war powers resolution is constitutional? >> you know, i haven't had that discussion with him. so i'm not going to speculate about the answer to that. there is a long debate about this. as y'all know and i think, scott, in particular know. and the material that's been written and testified to could fill the room over the years. i would point out there's been some expressions on the hill about the issue that are
inconsistent with expressions in the past about the constitutionality of the war powers resolution. and i think that if nothing else testified to the fact there's a lot of debate about it. this president believes he has acted in a manner that is consistent with the war powers resolution. again, you pointed to the report that we are releasing, providing to congress later today. >> yes? how are you? >> jay, i'm good. how are you? president obama said last year that he was going to -- this year going to pakistan. has he had the time to do that? >> well, i don't have any schedule announcements to make. >> he hasn't changed his mind about the trip? >> i have no real answer because i haven't had a discussion with him about that or on travel. >> you did say he was going to go for sure? >> i don't know that. >> on the golf came, is he doing any trash talking in advance of
sunday? or is he going to let the golf do the talking? >> i have heard no trash talking from the president. on this. i think it's fair to say the president enjoys golf and plays it when he can. but i don't think he would say he's an expert golfer. and i hear the speaker of the house quite good, as well as the governor of ohio. don't take any word for it -- i'm not a golfer. but there are ways to measure this. >> what's the president's handicap? >> classified. no seriously, this is about -- i think i've said in the past, too, the president plays golf because i think a lot of presidents who occupy this house, they look for ways to get outdoors where you are not surrounded by people. the process itself is one he
enjoys as much as the game, which he does enjoy. he's a competitive guy. i'm not making predictions or doing any trash talking. >> i mean this is a big deal. i mean if he goes and let boehner beat him that's going to look -- >> i don't think it's about winning or losing. i think it's about -- >> i think it's about the -- getting together for a few hours -- >> so he is a lousy golfer? >> >> -- and developing the relationship they have. they have obviously spent a fair amount of time together, mostly in the oval office in the cr discussions. but he looks forward to doing this and i think broadly thinks it's a worthwhile endeavor simply because, i think, as a member of the house republican caucus who was here for a visit with the president last week, it said upon departing the white house, any day democrats and republicans sit across and actually exchange ideas and
talk, instead of shouting past each other. these are my words now on cable tv or through other media, that's a good thing. that's good for the process, it's good for the country, it may move you a little bit closer towards the kind of compromise that we need to get the things done that the american people expect us to get done. so if it takes a few hours out on the golf course to help that process, i think it's a worthwhile thing to do. yes, sir. >> general petraeus is in town. is it expected before he goes back to afghanistan he will -- >> again, i don't have any announcements about meetings. it's fair -- i'll refer to you what i've said in the past. we will have discussions with general pais tray yes, -- petras who is the general in charge in afghanistan, about the beginning of a drawdown. which i hasten to remind is a implementation of a policy that
he articulated in december of 2009, including the fact that we would begin the drawdown in july of 2011. >> jay, is it a preference of opinion that acting consistent with the war powers act is legally the same thing as complying with the act? when he ran for election, is that what he side by presidents abiding by the war powers act? >> i'm not sure i can parse this any more than i have. expect to say we have acted in a manner consistent with the war powers resolutions. the legal analysis will be supplied as part of this report to congress. i think it's important to remember what we're talking about here in terms of the mission in libya. what we are doing, what we have done, and what we're not doing, what it does not include, and i think that's important context when you look at the reasoning
here and the resolution and the kind of engagement that we're talking about. >> it's like saying you are just a little bit pregnant. we're not really in -- >> i'm not at all pregnant. >> but his description, is there any other law that he acts just capability with the law and not in compliance with the law? >> look i -- i think that i may have -- although i will continue to, if you guys want to hear it, give the answers that i have given you. i don't want to pretend i'm a lawyer and to delve into that. i think that the reasoning and the analysis that will be provided in a short period of time will help answer the questions that you are asking. yes. >> jay, since all the serious war powers questions have been asked, i want to get back to golf. has the vice president done any trash talking?
[laughter] >> not that i've heard. he also enjoys the game. but not that i've heard. >> why did the president choose him? is it because he's a little bit after -- a little bit of a ringer? >> i think because he's vice president of united states. he's leading the negotiations. again, i don't want to send a signal that somehow the negotiations will continue on the golf course, but that is obviously a topic of conversation that's likely to arise -- it's hard to imagine that it won't -- among many other things. you know, he's a good partner to have in general, i think, whether you are playing golf or you're trying to figure out nuclear arms treaties or budget negotiations. >> partner or ally? [laughter] >> seven handicap has nothing to do with it? >> he's a good golfer, i know that. april? >> jay, going back to pakistan real fast.
you said there are diplomatic nuances with the words partner and ally. what would make pakistan an ally? >> april, that's a fair question. i think for the diplomatese, i refer you to the state department. as a layman, they have been partner, ally, the important point here is that we have an important relationship. we discuss them directly and meet with the pakistani counterparts regularly precisely because we need to discussion those issues and further the cooperation that we have. >> is the investigation still going on as to their knowledge of osama bin laden being with the u.s. still questioning government decisions in
pakistan? >> you know, i don't know the nature of that. we were obviously looking into that. i don't know where that stands. >> is it helpful that to the u.s. can straighten their own nuclear program and china and russia and did the u.s. send any messages before the meeting? >> not that i'm aware of. obviously, we have worked with the chinese and russians on that issue and we'll continue to. but i don't have any more information on that. all the way not back. yes, ma'am. >> does the president think the report to congress is going to settle the debate on the hill? or is he expecting to have to further defend his actions? >> i wouldn't predict the future on that. i think that it will answer a lot of questions. i think that it will continue to trade of consulting with
congress in a robust manner on that mission that began even before the mission started and was launched. but obviously if as the mission continues and more -- if there are more questions raised, we will work with congress and consult with congress going forward. >> jay, two questions. >> gils? >> thanks. on the deficit. director sperling spoke aing bit yet about david cameron's approach, which includes raising revenues chiefly on the wealthier, does the president agree this is an significant example of con servetives being willing to raise taxes as well as cutting spending? is it being used in the negotiations? >> i'm not aware it's been brought up in any negotiations. but the -- on the broader point, i would say giles, what we have
said in the past, even country dealing with deficit and debt issues have to deal in their own way. i don't want to stretch an analogy in either direction. our position, which you know, is that the way to -- we have put forward a path to achieving dramatic reductions in our deficits, $4 trillion over ten to twelve years in a balanced way. in a way that spreads the burden and sacrifice in a way that's fair and does not put the burden disproportionately on our seniors, disabled children, and the families of our children and that we believe because it will maintain the investments in education and innovation and infrastructure that are so key to building the foundation of this economy for the 21st century, it will enhance our
economy to grow and create jobs in the near term even as it gets our long term balance sheet in a better position. so that includes dealing with spending through the tax code. and you can have absolute positions and pledges that you sign that are abstract and based on politically potent positioning. but if you really want to solve this problem, you can't do it by going after the 12% of discretionary spending, and do it in a fair way by ending medicare as we know it and shifting the burden of health care costs so dramatically. having said that, there has been process and willingness to allow
all ideas to be brought to the table. we are encouraged by that. >> again, -- >> yes. [laughter] >> siris radio. >> two more questions. one more with the war powers thing. in effective solution and promising and delivers on specifics, is that more important to the president than strict compliance to the satisfaction of congress with war powers? >> do you want to hear my answer again? should i just refer you to my remarks? i've done my best to answer this. i think that you'll obviously have questions after we we -- yu read this information that we're sending to congress. but i think it will help answer a lot of the questions that you have. >> and the second one was following in the dream line in the senate, senators graham and demint both called out not only the policy but members of
the staff and future members of the staff essentially on their position saying the president is chosing or that the national labor relations board is preferring jobs in union states, versus nonunion workers or so-called right to work states. is this something the president has a reaction to? >> i would say it's important to remember. what i have said in the past. we need to refer questions on the action by the >> -- and to e nlb because it an independent bod si and independent agency enforcement action. we don't get involved in particular enforcement matter in independent agencies. having said that, i would also say the president has a strong record on labor rights. we also support a strong private sector in the united states that helps our economy grow and create jobs. that's what the president has been working so hard on. including with his jobs and
competitiveness council meeting on monday in north carolina. on boeing in particular, i mean boeing is a great american company. it's doing good things. they are growing, they are increasing experts, and they are investing here in the united states. the president has set a goal of doubling over the experts. we're on track to do that and we're doing it in part because we have jim mcnerney leadership on the export council. you know, i think it's important to remember that the agency here is independent and it's an enforcement action. and to assert that we somehow are against robust growth of private sector and especially companies that invest here and increase our experts, it's just wrong. >> in south carolina, is that good for doubling experts? >> again, i think i have to refer you to the agency
involved. thanks, everybody. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> next month on booktv in depth, author, activist, linda hogan. focuses on native american and womens issues in the environment. including the woman that watches over the world and her latest, grounding the human corners. join our three-hour conversations taking our phone calls, e-mails, and tweets for linda hogan, sunday july 3rd on noon eastern on c-span2.
that they were forced to halt surveillance of a federal gun smuggling sting operation along the u.s.-mexico border. a justice the party official said that one of those allegations raised serious questions, she declined to say who authorized the program citing ongoing investigations. weapons linked to the operation known as fast and furious were found near where border patrol agent brian terrie was killed late last year. this hearing is four hours. >> [inaudible conversations]